exactly!! someone gets it! Rich is grasping at straws. bringing up a Bush story from 2000 that has nothnig to do with anything. running to the national enquirer for news reports hoping to bring down a president on a 6 year old story.

Show me where I said ONCE that the National Enquirer story was true.

If you cannot find a single instance in this thread then I expect an apology from you for consistently putting words in my mouth.

Rich, flipper is obviously just trying to rattle you by pretending to not understand where you are coming from. Honestly, I think he got your hackles up pretty good. Don't waste time on people who are obviously just spoiling for a confrontation, he isn't interested in honest dialogue, just rattling your cage.

Rich, flipper is obviously just trying to rattle you by pretending to not understand where you are coming from. Honestly, I think he got your hackles up pretty good. Don't waste time on people who are obviously just spoiling for a confrontation, he isn't interested in honest dialogue, just rattling your cage.

My cage isn't rattled. I'm just allowing him to continue making more and more of a fool of himself.

And you're giving the guy WAAAAAAAY too much credit by saying he is pretending to not understand.

Also, did you guys know that the National Enquirer wrote this article? I mean, they believe a lot of stupid stuff, but they were right about the John Edwards thing...Throw enough poop against the wall and maybe it'll stick, eh?

I'm not sure, but I think the first thing said in this thread by Rich himself was "It is the National Enquirer so take it for what it's worth."

Although I could be wrong....my reading skills have been lacking lately.

Yea I know, its almost like he put the disclaimer out there so that no one would get their pretty pink panties in a bunch over the source and assume that Rich actually was putting a lot of clout in the story or its source. Weird huh?Of course no one would be so dumb that they would actually miss that right? I mean, assuming we read the same thing Iowa. My reading has been a bit lacking lately as well; perhaps we are wrong and he is actually saying that its the most credible source in the world and the story is factual. Who knows with such ambiguity running wild in Rich's posts.

I know what you said, no need to get all emotional over it. Relax just trying to have a discussion here.

But you posted about this story and thought it was somehow valid enough to post the link and start a discussion over it. And even insinuated that it "might" be true because they got 1 story (edwards) right in about 75 years. I believe nothing in those publications are true and your "take it for what its worth" disclaimer is laughable. Because everything in those publications are worth nothing! It's made up nonsense!

We obviously disagree. But I see you can't agree to disagree like an adult.

I And even insinuated that it "might" be true because they got 1 story (edwards) right in about 75 years.

John Edwards is a politician. Barack Obama is a politician. The Enquirer did a story on Edwards cheating on his wife. The Enquirer did a story on Obama cheating.

Do you see the correlation? Could the Enquirer be wrong? Of course...hence the disclaimer. Could it be right? Well, as we saw with Edwards, surprisingly it can be. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.

I And even insinuated that it "might" be true because they got 1 story (edwards) right in about 75 years.

John Edwards is a politician. Barack Obama is a politician. The Enquirer did a story on Edwards cheating on his wife. The Enquirer did a story on Obama cheating.

Do you see the correlation? Could the Enquirer be wrong? Of course...hence the disclaimer. Could it be right? Well, as we saw with Edwards, surprisingly it can be. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.

Flipper it's obvious you have it in for Rich. Your following him to other threads and nitpicking his posts in an attempt to get under his skin or prove some point. You might want to reconsider your course of action here. Other people have tried that on these threads and not just with Rich, sooner or later your going to get yourself in trouble or banned. Its obvious to everyone else here what your doing. You've used up all your creditability already.

Flipper it's obvious you have it in for Rich. Your following him to other threads and nitpicking his posts in an attempt to get under his skin or prove some point. You might want to reconsider your course of action here. Other people have tried that on these threads and not just with Rich, sooner or later your going to get yourself in trouble or banned. Its obvious to everyone else here what your doing. You've used up all your creditability already.

Oh my god, you people are losing it. Im not following anyone anywhere. I only have 100 posts and have been here a week, look up my history. The posts are all archived and won't lie. I have responded to a bunch of posts by various users. Look it up!!

He mentioned out one incorrect fact in another thread, I pointed it out. Didn't attack him or anythnig of that nature. Just corrected the fact and it was no big deal.

Now I'm being threatened with being banned? over what? You guys are all overreacting here a little.

You say I am following someone around the boards. Float the idea I will get banned for doing so. Then when the facts show I am not following anyone around, you say...I didn't say you were getting banned. I can't even ban anyone..... So why even bring "banning" up then?

This is insane. Some of you people need to chill out and relax. It's only a message board. Not to mention read what you are writing before you hit send. The double-talk is amazing.

You say I am following someone around the boards. Float the idea I will get banned for doing so. Then when the facts show I am not following anyone around, you say...I didn't say you were getting banned. I can't even ban anyone..... So why even bring "banning" up then?

He said to watch what you're doing as some have followed your trend and ended up banned. Then you say he threatened you, then he said he can't ban you, then you ask why he brought it up. Do you see the circle of confusion you've put upon yourself?

You say I am following someone around the boards. Float the idea I will get banned for doing so. Then when the facts show I am not following anyone around, you say...I didn't say you were getting banned. I can't even ban anyone..... So why even bring "banning" up then?

He said to watch what you're doing as some have followed your trend and ended up banned. Then you say he threatened you, then he said he can't ban you, then you ask why he brought it up. Do you see the circle of confusion you've put upon yourself?

WOW, see, it's not that hard for others to comprehend what I type. Flipper just has reading comprehension issues. I guess that's all our fault somehow.

Ya know what's funny is how Obama opponents are often labeled as racists, but what about the Democrats who bitterly fought against Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court? Little facts like that seem to get swept under the rug when it's not convenient to their cause. Not that conservatives can't be equally hypocritical, just sayin.